The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to establish guilt beyond doubt, as well as the importance of specific details in the charge sheet and the need to address flaws and inconsistencies in the investigation.

VENKATA RAMAIYA, J.

( 1 ) ON the evening of 8-11-1952 one Venkataramanappa alias Appaiah aged about 43 years was murdered in front of his own house in Tirumalahally, a village situated at a distance of about 6 miles from Mulbagal and about 60 miles from Bangalore. Information of the murder reached the police Out Post at Tayalur shortly after and conveyed to the Sub Inspector at Mulbagal the same night. Investigation started on the following day and a charge sheet was placed on 25-11-1952 In the Magistrate's Court at Kolar against 9 men alleging commission of the offence of murder by some with the abetment of others amongst them. Of the 9 persons thus accused, the last has been absconding, the 3rd was discharged and the rest were committed for trial. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Accused 2, 4 and 5, found Accused 1 guilty of committing the murder and sentenced him to death. Accused 6, 7 and 8 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 I. P. C. and sentenced to transportation for life. Against these convictions and sentences these four appeals are filed by Accused 1, 6, 7 and 8 respectively and for confirmation of the sentence of death there is a reference under Section 374 Criminal P. C. The appeals and the reference will be disposed of by this judgment.

( 2 ) IT is undisputed that Appaiah. returned at about 6 P. M. on 8-11-1952 to his house after a visit to a neighbouring village, went out to bring coffee powder as his wife said that there was no powder to prepare the coffee he asked for and within a short while after this, severe injuries on his chest and abdomen were Inflicted causing instantaneous death. The only person who has given evidence as regards the persons who caused those injuries is P. W. 30, a son of the deceased Appaiah. Accused 6, 7 and 8 are not alleged to be the assailants but are said to have instigated or induced Accused 1 to murder Appaiah, For this, the evidence of two witnesses P. Ws. 27 and 28 is chiefly relied upon.

( 3 ) THE motive imputed to A-6, A-7 and A-8 for plotting the death of Appaiah is that he and accused 8 headed rival factions in the village, that owing to hostility of feeling between the parties Accused 8 was highly incensed when Appaiah who failed to secure even a single vote at the election of members to the Village Panchayati became the Chairman and therefore, in collaboration with Accused 6 and 7 who are both of his party, engaged Accused 1 for getting rid of him. Though the accused have denied the existence of parties in the village, the statement of p. W. 8 the Amildar that there were two parties, one led by Appaiah. the other by Accused 7 and 8 and that the two were at loggerheads at the time of the Panchayat Elections may be accepted as unbiassed and true. The records relating to the Elections were called for and exhibited to show that A-6 and A-7 did not stand as candidates at all for Election, that while A-8 got the highest votes, Appaiah got none and that he was not even nominated as a member of the Panchayat. The names of the elected and nominated members are mentioned in Ex. D-22 but no one is named as Chairman in the column provided for it. In view of the absence of Appaiah's name in Ex. D-22 and of any order or resolution about the Chairmanship, it is difficult to believe that Appaiah was or could be the chairman as stated by some witnesses though he was miserably defeated in the election and not even nominated as a member. The Amildar does not speak to it and no rule under which this is possible has been pointed out.

( 4 ) THE Interval between the election and the murder is so long as two years during which accused 8 would not have failed to disclose his resentment by protest or otherwise if Appaiah acted as Chairman and if A-8 took it seriously. There is nothing to suggest that Accused 7 or accused 8 was enraged against Appaiah on this account or that his being the Chairman prompted or aggravated hatred towards him. It is not likely to have been dorm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document